[XTalk] Re: Guidelines for locating the Markan community

Dear Ted: Welcome to CrossTalk. Your thesis is a most welcome transition from the Materials & Methods Seminar with Crossan to resumption of really serious

Message 1 of 5
, Mar 1, 2000

0 Attachment

Dear Ted:

Welcome to CrossTalk. Your thesis is a most welcome transition from the
Materials & Methods Seminar with Crossan to resumption of really serious
scholarship on this e-list that has been treading water of late. The
carefulness of your reasoning & the thoroughness of your research
challenges us to be at our best in replying to you. And I'm certain that
other long-time participants in CrossTalk's discussions would join me in
inviting your observant critiques of any of our posts that interest you.

Before raising questions about your methodology for locating Mark (or
any text) let me just note that I have long been openly skeptical of the
patristic tradition locating Mark in Rome & have argued instead (though
not yet in print) for a Palestinian provenance among Hellenized Jews for
this gospel (as against an alternative origin in Egypt where Mark seems
to have ehjoyed early & lasting favor). Most of my arguments have
concentrated on questioning the basis for claims of Mark's "Paulinism"
which -- if true -- would make a Palestinian birthplace for this gospel
virtually impossible. But unlike you I have gravitated towards a Judean
(but non-Jerusalem) place of origin. Unfortunately I have not like you
taken the time to develop my thesis in full or prepare it for meticulous
critique.

For the sake of both dialog & perspective, however, let me just sketch
my reasons for preferring a Judean site for composition, so that I in
turn can benefit from critique by you & other CrossTalkers.

1. As I read Mark, chapter 13 is the most blatant & most urgent message
that the author directs to his readers. This is evident not only from
his aside in 13:14 ("let the reader understand") but from J's peroration
in 13:37 ("What I say to you I say to all: Watch!"). So my first
question to you is: why do you concentrate on topical guidelines for
locating Mark almost to the exclusion of these temporal markers? If the
Markan author took the trouble to alert readers J's words in this
chapter more than any other, shouldn't we assume that J's explicit
instructions in this passage were also selected or designed to apply to
the situation of his original readers?

2. The statement immediately following Mark's first explicit heads up to
the reader in 13:14 gives explicit marching orders to those who have
been so alerted: WHEN the desolating sacrilege happens, THEN "let those
who are in JUDEA flee to the mountains." Granted, the author of such an
instruction does not have to be himself located in Judea. But since Mark
lacks any preface comparable to Luke's or other epistolary markers, I
think it is rather safe to assume that he was in rather close proximity
to his intended readers. Mark generally writes more as a platoon leader
trying to rally disoriented troops rather than a general sending battle
orders from a safe distance. To be credible his urgency & his call for
personal dedication & self-sacrifice must involve him as well as his
readers. Apart from Mark's geographical confusion of Galilean sites,
this is the thing that leads me shy away from a Galilean or northern
provenance for the author. In the Jewish war, Galilee & adjoining
northern provinces were quickly subdued BEFORE Judea or Jerusalem came
under siege. So highlighting events related to the latter region hardly
makes much sense as signs to travel to the former.

3. That impression of a southern focus for Mark & his audience is
bolstered by the gospel's conclusion when the women are reminded by the
youth of J's last deployment strategy to the disciples : "After I am
raised up I will go before you to Galilee" (14:28). Mark's conclusion
presents this as a plan that both the disciples & the readers were apt
to overlook or forget: "Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is
goings before you to Galilee; THERE you will see him, AS HE TOLD YOU"
(16:7). The appearance of the risen J is presented as something that
WILL take place in Galilee IF those who in the narrative are now
situated in Judea go there. Mark's conclusion stresses that the women
did NOT give Peter & the other disciples this message. Hence presumably
they STAYED in Judea & did NOT really see J (at least that seems to be
implication of Mark's narrative logic).

Thus, at two crucial points near the conclusion of Mark there are
internal indicators that the author is addressing a Judean audience. I
do not find in this gospel the same compelling narrative rationale for
prefering a Galilean or Caesarean Sitz. Indeed the narrative tensions
between Peter & Jesus throughout the 2nd half of Mark makes me seriously
doubt that Mark's audience is located in the supposed region of Peter's
alleged messianic confession.

4. Mark's frequent warning of persecutions of followers of J fits what
we know of mid-1st c. events in Judea better than anywhere in northern
Palestine. J's matter of fact statement that "following him" entails
being prepared to face crucifixion (8:34) would certainly seem relevant
to Judean Xns for whom word or witness of Titus' mass crucifixions of
any captured Jew suspected of resistence was a vivid & terrifying
impression. As far as I know the last mention of crucixions taking place
in Galilee or the surrounding area was in the wake of Varus' conquest of
Sepphoris in 4 BCE (Josephus *Antiquities* 17:288-295). See quote in my
*Into His Own*:

Also J's warning to prepare for judgment before *councils*, synagogues &
*governors* seems more relevant to Judean Xns than to those in Galilean
villages. Compare Paul's description of the treatment of "congregations
of God" in Judea (1 Thess 2:14f) & the stories in the early chapters of
Acts. Do we have any evidence that those in Galilean villages or beyond
faced such harassment?

In short, I find your criteria for locating Mark quite carefully thought
out but too narrowly focused on geographical clues.

For my part I think the author of this gospel is probably writing TO
Christians in Jerusalem & the surrounding region in the immediate
aftermath of the social chaos caused by the siege of Jerusalem. Exact
dating is difficult, but I lean to a publication time shortly before the
destruction of the temple (else I'm not clear why Mark would have
stressed that the J logion about the destruction of the temple was false
-- 14:58f) when revolutionary councils in Jerusalem were still executing
any who did not support their policies. Where Mark himself is located is
another story. Perhaps Arimathea (Harmathaim) approximately 20 mi to the
NW of Jerusalem on the border of Judea & Samaria? Can you think of a
better reason for Mark to identify this as the home of the mysterious
Joseph claims J's corpse or to conclude with the story of his empty
tomb?

I am well aware that Mark 7:3-4 can be cited to argue against a Judean
or even Jewish identity of Mark & his readers. But I am convinced that
these verses are a later interpolation. What other problems do you find
in my reasoning?

Mahlon. Thank you for your very thoughtful and thought provoking response. There are several points I would like to respond to. Unfortunately, I am pressed

Message 2 of 5
, Mar 1, 2000

0 Attachment

Mahlon.

Thank you for your very thoughtful and thought provoking response. There
are several points I would like to respond to. Unfortunately, I am pressed
for time to get to the Jesus Seminar and I am in Florida the first of next
week. I would like to get back to you next week sometime.

> Dear Ted:
>
> Welcome to CrossTalk. Your thesis is a most welcome transition from the
> Materials & Methods Seminar with Crossan to resumption of really serious
> scholarship on this e-list that has been treading water of late. The
> carefulness of your reasoning & the thoroughness of your research
> challenges us to be at our best in replying to you. And I'm certain that
> other long-time participants in CrossTalk's discussions would join me in
> inviting your observant critiques of any of our posts that interest you.
>
> Before raising questions about your methodology for locating Mark (or
> any text) let me just note that I have long been openly skeptical of the
> patristic tradition locating Mark in Rome & have argued instead (though
> not yet in print) for a Palestinian provenance among Hellenized Jews for
> this gospel (as against an alternative origin in Egypt where Mark seems
> to have ehjoyed early & lasting favor). Most of my arguments have
> concentrated on questioning the basis for claims of Mark's "Paulinism"
> which -- if true -- would make a Palestinian birthplace for this gospel
> virtually impossible. But unlike you I have gravitated towards a Judean
> (but non-Jerusalem) place of origin. Unfortunately I have not like you
> taken the time to develop my thesis in full or prepare it for meticulous
> critique.
>
> For the sake of both dialog & perspective, however, let me just sketch
> my reasons for preferring a Judean site for composition, so that I in
> turn can benefit from critique by you & other CrossTalkers.
>
> 1. As I read Mark, chapter 13 is the most blatant & most urgent message
> that the author directs to his readers. This is evident not only from
> his aside in 13:14 ("let the reader understand") but from J's peroration
> in 13:37 ("What I say to you I say to all: Watch!"). So my first
> question to you is: why do you concentrate on topical guidelines for
> locating Mark almost to the exclusion of these temporal markers? If the
> Markan author took the trouble to alert readers J's words in this
> chapter more than any other, shouldn't we assume that J's explicit
> instructions in this passage were also selected or designed to apply to
> the situation of his original readers?
>
> 2. The statement immediately following Mark's first explicit heads up to
> the reader in 13:14 gives explicit marching orders to those who have
> been so alerted: WHEN the desolating sacrilege happens, THEN "let those
> who are in JUDEA flee to the mountains." Granted, the author of such an
> instruction does not have to be himself located in Judea. But since Mark
> lacks any preface comparable to Luke's or other epistolary markers, I
> think it is rather safe to assume that he was in rather close proximity
> to his intended readers. Mark generally writes more as a platoon leader
> trying to rally disoriented troops rather than a general sending battle
> orders from a safe distance. To be credible his urgency & his call for
> personal dedication & self-sacrifice must involve him as well as his
> readers. Apart from Mark's geographical confusion of Galilean sites,
> this is the thing that leads me shy away from a Galilean or northern
> provenance for the author. In the Jewish war, Galilee & adjoining
> northern provinces were quickly subdued BEFORE Judea or Jerusalem came
> under siege. So highlighting events related to the latter region hardly
> makes much sense as signs to travel to the former.
>
> 3. That impression of a southern focus for Mark & his audience is
> bolstered by the gospel's conclusion when the women are reminded by the
> youth of J's last deployment strategy to the disciples : "After I am
> raised up I will go before you to Galilee" (14:28). Mark's conclusion
> presents this as a plan that both the disciples & the readers were apt
> to overlook or forget: "Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is
> goings before you to Galilee; THERE you will see him, AS HE TOLD YOU"
> (16:7). The appearance of the risen J is presented as something that
> WILL take place in Galilee IF those who in the narrative are now
> situated in Judea go there. Mark's conclusion stresses that the women
> did NOT give Peter & the other disciples this message. Hence presumably
> they STAYED in Judea & did NOT really see J (at least that seems to be
> implication of Mark's narrative logic).
>
> Thus, at two crucial points near the conclusion of Mark there are
> internal indicators that the author is addressing a Judean audience. I
> do not find in this gospel the same compelling narrative rationale for
> prefering a Galilean or Caesarean Sitz. Indeed the narrative tensions
> between Peter & Jesus throughout the 2nd half of Mark makes me seriously
> doubt that Mark's audience is located in the supposed region of Peter's
> alleged messianic confession.
>
> 4. Mark's frequent warning of persecutions of followers of J fits what
> we know of mid-1st c. events in Judea better than anywhere in northern
> Palestine. J's matter of fact statement that "following him" entails
> being prepared to face crucifixion (8:34) would certainly seem relevant
> to Judean Xns for whom word or witness of Titus' mass crucifixions of
> any captured Jew suspected of resistence was a vivid & terrifying
> impression. As far as I know the last mention of crucixions taking place
> in Galilee or the surrounding area was in the wake of Varus' conquest of
> Sepphoris in 4 BCE (Josephus *Antiquities* 17:288-295). See quote in my
> *Into His Own*:
>
> http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/uprising.html#Sepphoris
>
> Also J's warning to prepare for judgment before *councils*, synagogues &
> *governors* seems more relevant to Judean Xns than to those in Galilean
> villages. Compare Paul's description of the treatment of "congregations
> of God" in Judea (1 Thess 2:14f) & the stories in the early chapters of
> Acts. Do we have any evidence that those in Galilean villages or beyond
> faced such harassment?
>
> In short, I find your criteria for locating Mark quite carefully thought
> out but too narrowly focused on geographical clues.
>
> For my part I think the author of this gospel is probably writing TO
> Christians in Jerusalem & the surrounding region in the immediate
> aftermath of the social chaos caused by the siege of Jerusalem. Exact
> dating is difficult, but I lean to a publication time shortly before the
> destruction of the temple (else I'm not clear why Mark would have
> stressed that the J logion about the destruction of the temple was false
> -- 14:58f) when revolutionary councils in Jerusalem were still executing
> any who did not support their policies. Where Mark himself is located is
> another story. Perhaps Arimathea (Harmathaim) approximately 20 mi to the
> NW of Jerusalem on the border of Judea & Samaria? Can you think of a
> better reason for Mark to identify this as the home of the mysterious
> Joseph claims J's corpse or to conclude with the story of his empty
> tomb?
>
> I am well aware that Mark 7:3-4 can be cited to argue against a Judean
> or even Jewish identity of Mark & his readers. But I am convinced that
> these verses are a later interpolation. What other problems do you find
> in my reasoning?
>
> Shalom!
>
> Mahlon
>
>
> --
>
> *********************
>
> Mahlon H. Smith, http://religion.rutgers.edu/mh_smith.html
> Associate Professor
> Department of Religion Virtual Religion Index
> Rutgers University http://religion.rutgers.edu/vri/
> New Brunswick NJ
>
> Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
> http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
>
> A Synoptic Gospels Primer
> http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/
>
> Jesus Seminar Forum
> http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/923/1/_/713/_/951925642/
>
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>

Nathan McGovern

... Not much. Actually, I find your analysis of the little apocalypse as oriented toward a Judaean audience to be quite insightful. However, I don t think

Message 3 of 5
, Mar 1, 2000

0 Attachment

Mahlon Smith wrote:

>I am well aware that Mark 7:3-4 can be cited to argue against a Judean
>or even Jewish identity of Mark & his readers. But I am convinced that
>these verses are a later interpolation. What other problems do you find
>in my reasoning?

Not much. Actually, I find your analysis of the "little apocalypse" as
oriented toward a Judaean audience to be quite insightful. However, I
don't think it proves that Mark was writing to a Judaean audience; rather,
it proves that either a) Mark was writing to a Judaean audience or b) the
source Mark used was writing to a Judaean audience. So, one must determine
the date for the little apocalypse to find out whether it is a source Mark
used or Markan invention.

The one other argument I question is in this sentence:

Exact

>dating is difficult, but I lean to a publication time shortly before the
>destruction of the temple (else I'm not clear why Mark would have
>stressed that the J logion about the destruction of the temple was false
>-- 14:58f) when revolutionary councils in Jerusalem were still executing
>any who did not support their policies.

The logion about the destruction of the temple that you are referring to is
this:

"I will tear down this temple made with hands; and over the course of three
days, another not made with hands will I build."

So certainly there must be some reason why Mark denies that Jesus said
this. It could be that the lives of Christians would be in danger because
of the revolutionary councils in Jerusalem, but it also could be because
the temple had already been destroyed and Jesus wasn't the one who
destroyed it. Well, unless Jesus was masquerading as a Roman general . . .
but that's just another way that Mark could have rationalized the saying.
And, besides, neither Jesus nor the Roman general rebuilt the temple after
three days (or any short period of time).

***

Ted Weedon wrote:

>I would like to join the XTalk discussion by floating the following
>proposal for methodological guidelines to locate the Markan community. I
>would appreciate any suggestions or critical feed back from any of you.

Welcome!

>The Second Guideline
>
>Wherever the community is located, it must be at significant distance from
>the Mediterranean Sea. It is very unlikely that either Mark or the members
>of his community have any firsthand experience or realistic awareness of the
>magnitude of the Mediterranean Sea. If Mark, as Theissen has argued, were
>aware of the size of the Mediterranean Sea, he would not have made the
>mistake of calling Lake Gennesaret a "sea." If there are bodies of water
>in the region of Mark's community, they must be of such diminutive size that
>by comparison Lake Gennesaret seemed like a sea to Mark, and likely to his
>community also. Therefore we must look for Markan allusions to the site of
>his community in geographical settings whose remoteness from the
>Mediterranean Sea make it unlikely that Mark or members of that community
>would have any realistic knowledge about that body of water.

I have two objections to this argument. First, although one could argue
that since Mark calls Lake Gennesaret a sea, he must not have ever seen a
real sea like the Mediterranean, one could just as easily argue that he
never saw Lake Gennesaret. The logic in his mind might have been, "It
plays a big role in the background to Jesus' ministry, so it must be a big
body of water." Second, I don't see how it would be unlikely that a person
living in Caesarea Philippi or anywhere near the Galilee, for that matter,
would have realistic knowledge about the sea. I made a crude calculation
using the map in my bible, and Tyre on the Mediterranean is a little over
30 miles from Caeasarea Philippi. Any city on the west side of the Jordan
would be a comparable distance to the Mediterranean. Personally, I can
walk 30 miles in two days. I wouldn't be surprised if a person more used
to walking long distances than this modern, car-driving person could walk
thirty miles in a single day. So why is it unlikely that he would have
seen the sea?

Also, aren't there Latinisms in GMark? For example, referring to the woman
in Mark 7:26 as a "Syrophoenecian." I'm not up-to-date on this so topic;
have Markan Latinisms been discounted? (Or am I misremembering?)

... Good point. I have considered that & after reading arguments for pre-Markan apocalyptic source remain convinced that the little apocalypse in Mark 13 is a

Message 4 of 5
, Mar 1, 2000

0 Attachment

Nathan McGovern wrote:

> Actually, I find your analysis of the "little apocalypse" as
> oriented toward a Judaean audience to be quite insightful. However, I
> don't think it proves that Mark was writing to a Judaean audience; rather,
> it proves that either a) Mark was writing to a Judaean audience or b) the
> source Mark used was writing to a Judaean audience. So, one must determine
> the date for the little apocalypse to find out whether it is a source Mark
> used or Markan invention.

Good point. I have considered that & after reading arguments for
pre-Markan apocalyptic source remain convinced that the little
apocalypse in Mark 13 is a Markan literary *construct* if not a total
Markan invention. [In the JS session on this chapter I argued that Mark
13:2, 28f & 32 were not likely to be inventions of either Mark or the
author of an apocalyptic "source"]. My reasons are thus:

1. Most of the contents of Mark 13 are indistinguishable from Mark's own
imminent eschatology & crisis warnings elsewhere in this gospel. IF the
little apocalypse was a pre-Markan source, Mark has *totally* absorbed
its viewpoint & vocabulary so that its style has become his.

2. Our sole source of knowledge of this apocalyptic composition is Mark
& 2 later gospels that copy & modify his text, especially by dropping
his urgent conclusion (13:32-37). Thus, there is no evidence that any
early Xn author knew it who did not know Mark.

4. IF the little apocalypse was a pre-Markan composition then someone
other than Mark should have known it. But Mark's own narrative logic
presupposes that his readers do NOT already know this apocalyptic secret
any more than J's disciples do.

5. The logic of the little apocalypse in Mark prepares its audience for
a radically imminent (13:37) conclusion of a crisis (13:20) within the
lifespan of Jesus' own generation (13:30) -- reinforcing & providing
more detailed circumstantial clues for predictions Mark already
introduced five chapters earlier (8:34-9:1). Thus, it develops Mark's
own compositional motifs rather than vice versa as one would expect in
the case of the use of a source.

6. The primary reasons for claiming that the little apocalypse is based
on a pre-Markan source are not based on literary evidence but on
historical presuppositions: (a) HJ was an apocalyptic preacher or (b)
the the desolating sacrilege refers to Caligula's abortive project of
erecting an image of himself in the temple in Jerusalem.

The first presupposition, however, is based on circular reasoning
(equating the Markan -- or Matthean portrait of J -- with HJ himself).
As for the 2nd, I think it probable that the Caligula scare is in the
background rather than on the coming horizon for the author of this
apocalypse. For there is no historical record of anything like the
events that the author of this apocalypse warns must precede the
desolating sacrilege (wars, false messiahs, persecution of Xns)
occurring prior to Caligula's threat. The most likely time-frame for
author & audience to consider all the "predictions" in Mark 13 urgent &
imminent is the late 60s (compare Josephus' account of events in Judea
leading up to & during the Jewish war) -- especially since it was then
that Nero began posing as Apollo incarnate (66-68). But that makes the
date of the little apocalypse virtually indistinguishable with the most
probable dating of Mark. So where's the evidence that the author of this
piece was not Mark?

... Y know, I really love this e-list when exchanges are of this quality. As some of my Texas buddies would say, It don t get no better than this. I will

Message 5 of 5
, Mar 2, 2000

0 Attachment

Ted Weeden wrote:

> I would like to join the XTalk discussion by floating the following
> proposal for methodological guidelines to locate the Markan community. I
> would appreciate any suggestions or critical feed back from any of you.
>
> <snip>

>
> The Second Guideline
>
> Wherever the community is located, it must be at significant distance from
> the Mediterranean Sea. It is very unlikely that either Mark or the members
> of his community have any firsthand experience or realistic awareness of the
> magnitude of the Mediterranean Sea. If Mark, as Theissen has argued, were
> aware of the size of the Mediterranean Sea, he would not have made the
> mistake of calling Lake Gennesaret a "sea." If there are bodies of water
> in the region of Mark's community, they must be of such diminutive size that
> by comparison Lake Gennesaret seemed like a sea to Mark, and likely to his
> community also. Therefore we must look for Markan allusions to the site of
> his community in geographical settings whose remoteness from the
> Mediterranean Sea make it unlikely that Mark or members of that community
> would have any realistic knowledge about that body of water.

Y'know, I really love this e-list when exchanges are of this quality. As some
of
my Texas buddies would say, "It don't get no better than this."

I will read your guidelines more thoroughly and critically this weekend when I
intend to laze about the house and catch up on reading...but this one stands
out immediately for a cursory comment. For those of us who dabble a tad
in the languages of 1st century Palestine, there is one immutable conclusion...
a word in one language almost never means the same as that translated into
another. The use of QALASSA by the Markan scribe seems to conform
with other usage that can describe a body of water large enough to be both
turbulent and "glassy" at times...in other words, a whole buncha water.

What someone in the 1st century Middle East called a "'sea" (Yom, QALASSA)
need not be an image of what we moderns consider a "sea." Hence, calling
Lake Gennesaret a "sea" is not a mistake. Another issue is the "speaker" of
the Gospel of Mark. NT and Patristic accounts leave us to believe that the
"speaker" of GMark is Kefa/Peter and Mark is recording it...at least in the
autograph version.